Hmm so far this debate is a hell of a lot more civil than I expected when I seen the thread.

__________________And so I walk, into the searing light which banishes all darkness, surrendering my face and form to atoms of dust, seeking the true darkness of peace,the cool shadows of eternity and the unknown fate of nothingnessTo view my sitetumblrdev arttwitter

Wow. Could not disagree more. Even the trilogies detractors would disagree. Hell, a lot of them complain that it was too big.

Well I'm a big time detractor of Nolan's Batman films and I'd agree with S.Grundy. Though I will say that the scope and scale were never things I had issue with in either franchise. These two characters are street level heroes so of course their scope and scale is going to be smaller.

It's just with me,but the Nolan films almost seem to have a independent film vibe to them,because they are so dark and complex. Spidey is more exciting,colorful and seems to be on a bigger scope. The music,the action scenes...they all just seems more,I don't know...grandiose? That doesn't take anything away from Nolans series. But,again,it's just my opinion on both series.

Ahh, okay. So you just don't really know what epic means, lol.

Quote:

Originally Posted by S. Grundy

Neither films are really epic. Though Nolan's feel especially small, when you consider Bruce was only Batman for like a year from Batman Begins to The Dark Knight, and then they jump ahead 8 years in The Dark Knight Returns. It just makes the world feel a lot smaller.

I'm assuming some just don't understand what epic is, or even what small is. Nolan's universe could be called "small", but that doesn't mean his trilogy doesn't have that epic feel, especially with TDKR. The universe may be small with only one hero who only passed the mantle down to someone else without gathering a sidekick, but that doesn't take away an epic feel.

Which Director do you think was more effective for you? Nolan. By a long way.

Who had the superior leading man? Batman. By a long way, but that isn't to say he couldn't have been better. But Maguire was such a miscast.

Which villains gripped you more? Norman and Harry Osborne were great. R'as, Crane were good. But Joker hands down best. Bane/talia/sandman/venom disappointing. Catwoman was far far better than I expected.

Did you dislike Mary Jane less than Rachel, more than Rachel, or did you want both characters to leap off of a cliff? I liked Rachel in BB (Katie Holmes) plenty. But when they changed actresses, I didn't like it. TDK Rachel and Mary Jane can go jump.

Overall, I had more expectations for Spiderman and am a bigger fan of Spiderman in general than I am Batman. Nolan exceeded my expectations with the excellent Begins and TDK and the above average/good TDKR. Raimi did ok with Spiderman 2 but the rest of it, I just hated McGuire, hated MJ, hated Venom. It was a let down. TASM is more up my street.

I'll come right out and say it. I love Batman. Always have. But Spidey is my all time favorite. And Raimi's series was the first time we've seen Spidey on the big screen. Where,with Bats,we already had the original 4 films before Nolan came along. Plus,although they messed up with part 3,I am obsessed with Venom/the symbiote. So that film was the most highly anticipated movie of my life. So,Spidey was alot more epic for me because I loved the character more. Although that may not exactly be what epic means,the Raimi series meant alot more to me that Nolan's. And that made it more "epic" in my eyes.

I'll come right out and say it. I love Batman. Always have. But Spidey is my all time favorite. And Raimi's series was the first time we've seen Spidey on the big screen. Where,with Bats,we already had the original 4 films before Nolan came along. Plus,although they messed up with part 3,I am obsessed with Venom/the symbiote. So that film was the most highly anticipated movie of my life. So,Spidey was alot more epic for me because I loved the character more. Although that may not exactly be what epic means,the Raimi series meant alot more to me that Nolan's. And that made it more "epic" in my eyes.

I'm not trying to get you to explain your decision or anything. Totally fine if you prefer Raimi's trilogy, but I was just confused as why you thought one was more epic than the other, so in your eyes Raimi's may seem epic, but you're just not going by the definition of epic when giving that to Raimi's Spider-Man.

I look at the DK trilogy as something like Star Wars; replace the Empire with the League of Shadows. The extent of the League's reach and influence gives the trilogy an epic feel. While BB visited more locations around the world, I felt like with each film, Nolan pulled the camera back on Gotham until we were given a sweeping view of the city in TDKR.

Spider-Man had the potential to be an epic, if Sam had decided to do more with Harry and Peter in SM3, while giving Mary Jane an arc where she's genuinely worried about Peter. I know she said she accepted him as Spider-Man and the risks that come with it...but experiencing the consequences of being his lover/wife and worrying that Peter wouldn't make it home after tangling with Harry or Sandman (A vicious gangster rather than a reluctant brute) would've been more interesting than her bad reviews in SM3.

__________________
"I defeated your uncle Victarion and his Iron Fleet off Fair Isle, the first time your father crowned himself. I held Storm's End against the power of the Reach for a year, and took Dragonstone from the Targaryens. I smashed Mance Rayder at the Wall, though he had twenty times my numbers. Tell me, turncloak, what battles has the Bastard of Bolton ever won that I should fear him?" - Stannis Baratheon

I'm still not sure how well Sam's SM3 would've turned out. We know we would've had Ben Kinglsey as the Vulture. Based on his Mandarin from the IM3 trailers, he'd probably be a good villain. Sandman would have still been Ben's killer, though.

To be even more specific, TDKR took place throughout Gotham. So it was, in a sense, epic.

__________________
"I defeated your uncle Victarion and his Iron Fleet off Fair Isle, the first time your father crowned himself. I held Storm's End against the power of the Reach for a year, and took Dragonstone from the Targaryens. I smashed Mance Rayder at the Wall, though he had twenty times my numbers. Tell me, turncloak, what battles has the Bastard of Bolton ever won that I should fear him?" - Stannis Baratheon

BB vs Spiderman = BB by a hair
TDK vs Spiderman 2 = Ledger's Joker is the highlight for me, but the rest of the film just feels ok. Spiderman 2 was fantastic, so Spidey has the edge here.
Spiderman 3 vs TDKR = hated Spiderman 3 and was very disappointed with TDKR.

So i cant choose lol

__________________

ďThere is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.Ē Goethe

If Jack Bauer joined the Rebel Alliance, 24 hours later there would be no Empire :p

To be even more specific, TDKR took place throughout Gotham. So it was, in a sense, epic.

Realistically, I would say Batman Begins dealt with more Gotham City with the main city and then the Narrows while TDK and TDKR really seemed to dealt with just the main city area.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MessiahDecoy123

lmao, is this thread for real?

You might as well compare Schumacher to Nolan.

I thought the same thing about your thread/poll regarding a Batman reboot when most of your suggestions just call for something different than what Nolan used when OF COURSE they're going to be different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePhantasm

TDK - Gotham and Hong Kong.

'Tis is true. I guess any film with two locations could be considered epic, lol.

Yes, and TDK had Hong Kong and Gotham. But what BB had was the years long expanse of time over which the story is told and that's why I mentioned the time factor as well. Much more time passes in BB than TDK and TDKR combined.

It didn't really COVER years. Only certain moments. If we're talking about how time has really been shown to pass, then TDKR takes the cake. Still very undetermined how much time Bruce spends with the League of Shadows.

Not what I meant. You think he was with the LoS for seven years? Because that's what I'm referring to. He's gone for seven years, but even then, we only see moments of him being gone and we never know how long he's with the LoS.

Leading Man: Bale and Maguire do good jobs portraying their respective characters, but they never become the character in a way Chris Reeve did with Superman. For Batman, things were lost in Nolanís desire to make him more ďhumanĒ, and Maguireís Spider-Man famously lacked the persona of Peter in his Spider-Man guise. Iíll give this one to Bale due to the material he got to work with, as well as the fact that he capture more of Bruce Wayne than Maguire did Peter Parker.

Love Interest: Technically, Bruce had two main love interests, but this will be a comparison between Mary Jane and Rachel. Ultimately, both were unlikable characters, but the edge goes to the Spider-Man trilogy because Dunst was kinda tolerable at some points in SM1 and 2. If I count Selina, her one movie performance was better than all three of Dunstís.

Supporting Cast: Have to go with the Batman Trilogy. You just canít beat Oldman as Gordon, Caine as Alfred, and Freeman as fox. The only supporting character from the Spider-Man franchise on their level is Simmons as JJ.

Villains: Once again, Batman. I donít have say anything about Heath Ledgerís Joker, but in addition to him, Tom Hardyís Bane has also entered the Pop Culture lexicon. And then you have excellent villain performances from Liam Neeson, Anne Hathaway, and Aaron Eckhart.

Action: Spider-Man, hands down. Nolanís fight scenes were mediocre at best, and when youíre best fight is your main hero getting his ass kicked, thatís a problem. Nolan did not really deliver when it came to capturing Batmanís fighting ability. On the other hand, Raimi gave us the Spidey/Doc Ock fight, easily one of, if not the best superhero film brawl yet. Raimi also deserves props for the tag team fight at the end of SM3, one of the few reasons I bother watching that film.